2004 (5) TMI 422 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of goods, Applicability of legal precedent, Admission by importer, Assessment of duty

Mis-declaration of Goods:
The case involved an appeal against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata regarding the mis-declaration of imported goods by M/s. Aanchal International. The inquiry revealed that the goods declared as completely mutilated old synthetic woollen rags were actually old and used garments. The total quantity of the imported goods was also mis-declared. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued, leading to the confiscation of goods and imposition of fines. The appellant challenged this order, arguing that the show cause notice was deficient and citing a legal precedent. However, the Revenue contended that the facts of the cited case were different and that the importer had admitted to the mis-declaration. The Tribunal noted the importer's admission and upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the facts of the cited case were not applicable to the current situation.

Applicability of Legal Precedent:
The appellant relied on a legal precedent, Gagret Woollen Mills P. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Delhi, to support their case. They argued that the facts and ratio of this case were similar to the present situation and requested the appeal to be accepted. In response, the Revenue asserted that the cited case was distinguishable and not applicable. They highlighted the importer's admission of mis-declaration and agreement to pay duty as crucial factors. The Tribunal analyzed the differences between the cited case and the current scenario, ultimately dismissing the appeal based on the inapplicability of the legal precedent.

Admission by Importer:
The importer admitted to the mis-declaration of both description and quantity in their reply to the show cause notice. They agreed to pay duty on the excess goods and requested early adjudication. Additionally, the importer agreed to pay duty based on the assessable value calculated at a specific rate per kilogram. The Tribunal emphasized that the importer's admission was a significant factor, as it served as clear proof of mis-declaration. This admission, coupled with the agreement to pay duty, supported the Commissioner's decision in assessing the value and quantity of the imported goods.

Assessment of Duty:
The Commissioner based the assessment of duty on the importer's admission and agreement to pay duty at a specified rate per kilogram. The Tribunal upheld this assessment, stating that the Commissioner had not erred in concluding the mis-declaration of quantity and description. They affirmed that the value calculated for duty was appropriate given the circumstances and importer's admission. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's arguments, concluding that the appeal lacked merit and subsequently dismissed it.

In summary, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata addressed issues related to mis-declaration of goods, the applicability of legal precedent, the importer's admission, and the assessment of duty. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision based on the importer's admission of mis-declaration and agreement to pay duty, emphasizing the inapplicability of the cited legal precedent. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the assessment of duty and the mis-declaration of goods by the importer.